De gratia Redemptoris

On the gifts conferred in justification

Justification, according to what has been said, is not something merely external to the justified man, but truly internal: the justified man is inwardly just. The question now is how in the concrete this internal renewal of the sinner is obtained, and what and of what kind are the gifts that are conferred in the justification of the sinner. In this thesis we affirm that some created gift is conferred. “Created” is said here only in opposition to “uncreated”; therefore by this word we say nothing in the thesis itself about the mode by which that being arises, whether by creation properly so called or by eduction; but only: not uncreated. But we in no way deny that the uncreated gift is given in justification; indeed we shall establish this explicitly later; in this thesis, then, it is only positively affirmed that a created gift is given.

The opposite view is attributed to Peter Lombard, who held charity not to be a created infused virtue but the Holy Spirit himself. If moreover he taught that charity and “sanctifying grace” are identical, or if what other theologians attribute to that created being of which the thesis speaks he attributes to charity, that is, to the Holy Spirit, then we have an adversary of our assertion¹.

We say that this created being is physically permanent, that is, it is not an actual gift (e.g. an act of charity) which perseveres morally (in the same way as, after an act of sin, a man remains a “sinner”); but this being itself remains in the physical order, whether the operation of the justified man is present or not. This being is an accident, and indeed of the genus of quality; so all theologians now hold. They affirm, therefore, that in justification there is infused by God into the soul of the sinner a physical accident, a quality, which, since it makes the sinful man holy, is called sanctifying grace, and since it is conceived to be after the manner of a habit, is also called habitual grace.

Morinus, investigating historically the various opinions on the effect of sacramental absolution, says of that opinion “which attributes (to absolution) the infusion of habitual grace, that it is the most recent of all: for scarcely before the year 1200 did the Schools begin to dispute about the habits of grace. Therefore none of the most ancient Scholastics, whether when they dispute about the effect of contrition or about the power of the sacraments, makes express mention of infused habits”². “The Scholastics by disputing attained only this, that the grace by which the sinner is justified is a habit infused by God into the soul. Many doctors cried out against these habits, and long the battle was fought with equal fortune; but at length, around the year 1240, all that dispute cooled down, and all the Doctors agreed in the positing of habits. Meanwhile many great men, some of whom we shall report in chapter 7, have contended down to this very day that, although in fact the justification of the ungodly comes about through an infused habit, it can nevertheless come about without it through acts elicited by the will with the help of the Holy Spirit without a new habit”³. Then in ch. 7 he sets before the reader's eyes “the opinion of the most celebrated Scholastics in this matter, to which he may safely assent”. The authors he brings forward are: Dominic Soto, Melchior Cano, Bartholomew Medina, Ruard Tapper, John Vincent, Thomas Stapleton, Albert Pighius, Louis Molina, Gabriel Vázquez, who at least affirm that the matter has not been defined by the Church.

It is true that Sacred Scripture does not speak explicitly of infused qualities or habits, nor do the holy Fathers employ those terms when they speak of justification. But the Scholastics applied philosophical concepts to the explanation of this matter too, which in the time of the Fathers had already been done in other doctrines (cf. the treatise on the Trinity, on the Word Incarnate). Thus, however, the doctrine itself is not changed, but the same doctrine is presented in another way. In fact, within a short time the Scholastics agreed on this, that in the justification of adults grace and the virtues are infused as to habit. Yet they still disputed whether the same must be said also of the justification of infants. But after the Council of Vienne chose the affirmative opinion as more probable, this dispute too seems to have ceased⁴

How far anything has been defined by the Council of Trent in this matter is disputed. From the history of the council itself it would seem that one must say that the council understood a physically permanent created being⁵; hence the thesis would have to be called defined faith. Yet several theologians either deny the definition or doubt it; but at least the thesis must be called theologically certain. Thus, however, it is not affirmed that it is established with the same certainty that that created gift, physically permanent, is precisely a “quality” or a “habit”.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE CHURCH

INNOCENT III, in the letter “Maiores”, reports, without deciding, two opinions about the effect of the baptism of infants: one which says that guilt indeed is remitted but grace is not conferred, the other which affirms both⁶. It is supposed that in adults both guilt is remitted and grace infused, since this was denied to little ones by some precisely for this reason, that they did not consent to this infusion.

CONC. VIENNENSE: “But because, as regards the effect of baptism in little ones, certain doctors of theology are found to have held contrary opinions... We, however, attending to the general efficacy of the death of Christ, which is applied through baptism equally to all the baptized, have judged the second opinion, which says that both to little ones and to adults there is conferred in baptism informing grace and the virtues, to be chosen as more probable, and more consonant and agreeable to the sayings of the Saints and to the theology of the modern doctors, with the sacred Council approving”⁷. Here too it is openly supposed that grace is infused into adults, since the reason is introduced: the efficacy of the death of Christ is applied through baptism equally to all the baptized (adults and infants).

CONC. TRID. 1) A created being: Sess. 6 cap. 7: “we are truly named and are just, receiving justice in ourselves, each one his own, according to the measure which the Holy Spirit divides to each as he wills, and according to each one's own disposition and cooperation”⁸. Can. 11: “If anyone says that men are justified... to the exclusion of grace and charity, which is poured forth into their hearts by the Holy Spirit and inheres in them... let him be anathema”⁹. Therefore something distinct from the Holy Spirit himself. 2) A physically permanent being: this is had from the history of the council and from the use of the term “to inhere”, as it was understood in the council (cap. 7 and can. 11)¹⁰.

Pius V condemned prop. 42 of Baius: “The justice... does not (consist) in any grace of the soul infused...”¹¹.

SACRED SCRIPTURE

1. A physically permanent being. From what has so far been brought forward from Sacred Scripture it is clear that men in justification are regenerated, that a new life, a new nature is communicated to them, whence they are sons of God, and that they are a new creature; but all these things cannot signify a merely new moral condition, nor only a transient physical act, but a physical principle permanently in the just man himself.

2. A created being. This new nature is not the Holy Spirit himself. For St Paul calls it, as an effect of the Holy Spirit, a spirit (πνεῦμα), and distinguishes it from the Holy Spirit himself, Rom 8, 16¹². To this can also be referred Eph 1, 13: “in whom you also, believing, were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise”; Eph 4, 30: “And grieve not the holy Spirit of God: in whom you were sealed unto the day of redemption”.

THE FATHERS

ST IRENAEUS: “And again, men who are unfruitful in justice and, as it were, wrapped round with thorns, if they receive diligence and, as it were, by an insertion receive the word of God, come back to the pristine nature of man, that which was made according to the image and likeness of God. But just as the wild olive, when grafted, does not indeed lose the substance of the wood, but changes the quality of its fruit and receives another name, being now called no longer a wild olive but a fruitful olive: so too man, grafted through faith and taking up the Spirit of God, does not indeed lose the substance of the flesh, but changes the quality of the fruit of his works and receives another name, signifying that transmutation which is for the better; he is now called no longer flesh and blood, but a spiritual man”¹³. ORIGEN: “But also, since many of the saints partake of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit cannot possibly be understood as a body, which each of the saints would receive divided into bodily parts; but he is truly a sanctifying power, of which all are said to have a part who have merited to be sanctified by his grace”¹⁴. ST CYPRIAN: “Buy yourself a white garment, that you, who according to Adam were naked and before were foul and unsightly, may be clothed with the white raiment of Christ”¹⁵. ST AMBROSE: “We are therefore sealed by God with the Spirit. For as we die in Christ that we may be reborn, so also we are signed with the Spirit that we may be able to hold his splendour and image and grace; which is surely a spiritual seal. For although we are signed in the body in appearance, yet in truth we are signed in the heart, that the Holy Spirit may express in us the likeness of the heavenly image”¹⁶. “Whether then justification seems to you to be conferred according to the body or according to the soul, I ask you to answer. But you cannot doubt, since justice, from which justification is derived, is surely of the mind, not of the body. You have been painted, then, O man, painted by the Lord your God. You have a good artist and painter. Do not destroy the good picture, shining not with pigment but with truth, expressed not in wax but in grace”¹⁷. ST AUGUSTINE: “The justice of God has been manifested; he did not say: the justice of man, or the justice of one's own will; but: the justice of God, not that by which God is just, but that with which he clothes man when he justifies the ungodly”¹⁸. “Nor let it disturb us that he said that they naturally do the things of the law, not by the Spirit of God, not by faith, not by grace. For this is what the Spirit of grace does, that he restores in us the image of God, in which we were made by nature”¹⁹. ST CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: “Sin therefore has been condemned, put to death first in Christ, to be put to death also in us, when we receive him in our own souls through faith and the communication of the Spirit, who perfects us into the form of Christ, namely through the quality of sanctification. For the Spirit of our Saviour Christ is, as it were, his form, imprinting in us in some way through himself the divine figure”²⁰. “If, sealed by the Holy Spirit, we are reformed unto God, how shall that be created by which the image of the divine substance is imprinted on us and the marks of the uncreated nature inhere in us? For the Spirit does not, after the manner of a painter, paint the divine substance in us, as though he himself were alien to it; nor does he lead us to the likeness of God in this way; but he himself, who is God and proceeds from God, is invisibly imprinted in the hearts of those who receive him, as a seal on wax, repainting nature to the beauty of the exemplar through his own communication and likeness, and restoring to man the image of God”²¹. “Christ is formed in us, the Holy Spirit bringing into us a certain divine form through sanctification and justice. For thus, thus does the character of the substance of God and of the Father shine in our souls, the Holy Spirit, as I said, reforming us through sanctification into himself”²²

THE THEOLOGIANS

As has already been said, the theologians are entirely agreed on the fact; they dispute about the qualification of the thesis, or even about those things which could absolutely come about. St Thomas sets out the matter in 1, 2 q. 110 a. 1 (Whether grace puts something in the soul), and a. 2 (Whether grace is a quality), and answers both affirmatively.

If it is asked whether this created being, physically permanent, sanctifying grace, is really distinct from the soul, one must answer affirmatively; and so almost all theologians, with very few exceptions²³. Although perhaps it is not necessary to affirm that every real accidental change of a substance requires an accident really distinct from the substance²⁴, yet this cannot be denied, if the real change is such as to bring with it a new and greater perfection. In the present case, however, the matter is not as though the same perfection previously existing had only another mode of being, but a truly new and greater perfection supervenes, which the positive arguments prove. Therefore sanctifying grace must altogether be called really distinct from the soul. The opposite opinion is perhaps to be explained from the fact that it conceives an accident after the manner of a most subtle substance; but St Thomas rightly says: “As Boethius says, the being of an accident is to be in something; whence every accident is not said to be a being as though it had being itself, but because by it something is; whence also it is said to be rather of a being than a being, as is said in 7 Metaph.”. And in what follows he touches the question how grace arises: “and because it belongs to that whose being it is to come to be or to be corrupted, therefore, properly speaking, no accident either comes to be or is corrupted; but it is said to come to be or to be corrupted according as the subject begins or ceases to be in act according to that accident: and according to this grace too is said to be created, from the fact that men are created according to it, that is, are constituted in a new being out of nothing, that is, not from merits, according to that word to the Ephesians 2: Created in Christ Jesus in good works”²⁵. And elsewhere: “Grace, since it is not a subsistent form, neither to be nor to come to be belongs to it properly of itself: whence it is not properly created in that mode by which substances subsisting of themselves are created. Yet the infusion of grace approaches to the nature of creation insofar as grace has no cause in the subject, neither efficient, nor such a material in which it is in potency in such a way that it could be led into act by a natural agent, as is the case with other natural forms”²⁶.

For the objections against the thesis see Beraza nr. 730 ss.; and 743 s., which however are easily solved by attending to this, 1) that we do not deny that the Holy Spirit is also given; 2) that the question is not what is absolutely possible, or what God perhaps could have done, but what in fact is the case in the present order.

In justification, besides sanctifying grace, the virtues of faith, hope and charity are infused. These virtues are, like sanctifying grace, entities physically permanent, qualities, “infused habits”. Now since acquired natural habits presuppose a power and confer on the subject both an inclination to act and an easier power, the infused virtues, habits infused by God, give the very power together with some inclination to act¹. These habits are immediately seated in the powers of the soul: faith in the intellect, hope and charity in the will. Faith and hope can remain in a man after sin, in whom sanctifying grace is no longer present; whence it is clear that they are really distinct from sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace, however, and charity are either both present or both absent; they are never so separated that one is present in the soul without the other. Hence the question is rightly asked whether sanctifying grace and charity are really identical. On this matter there is controversy among theologians. The real distinction is denied by Scotus and the Scotists, Durandus, Catharinus, Lainez, Salmerón, Bellarmine, Lessius; it is affirmed by St Thomas, Suárez, Gregory of Valencia, Tanner, Ripalda, and this opinion is now altogether the more common. All, however, concede that their opinion does not exceed probability.

If grace and charity are identical, grace has the will for its immediate subject, and therefore perfects the will immediately, and is consequently a habit proximately operative. Those, however, who say that grace and charity are really distinct hold the very substance of the soul as the immediate subject of grace, and grace is not a habit immediately operative but, as is commonly said, an entitative habit, or substantial habit, immediately perfecting the very substance of the soul, the nature of the soul. Just as in the order of natural generation nature is communicated together with the powers by which the subject is apt to elicit acts in the order corresponding to that nature, so in this opinion, in regeneration, nature is communicated, namely sanctifying grace itself, together with the powers for acts corresponding to the order of this new nature, the infused virtues. From this it appears that this question can be raised not only by those who hold that the powers of the soul are really distinct from its substance, but also by those who would deny such a distinction. For if grace and charity are identical, they attribute the same perfection to the soul; but if they are really distinct, grace and charity confer one perfection and another.

The question cannot be decided from Sacred Scripture, nor from the Fathers, nor from the councils². But the reasoning of St Thomas³ makes the opinion affirming the real distinction altogether more probable, and it adds weight that this opinion is now the more common.

Pesch⁴ expounds this reasoning as follows: “Nature is prior to the habits perfecting nature; the principle by which a thing is constituted in being is prior to that by which it is proximately disposed to act. But charity is an operative habit disposing man to love God supernaturally. Therefore it presupposes a higher nature already given, which is given through sanctifying grace. It must not indeed be forgotten that the names of habits and of nature are to be applied to the natural and the supernatural order not univocally but analogically; for grace too, which gives the higher nature, is an accident perfecting the natural essence, and the supernatural habits are other accidents which give not facility but the power of acting supernaturally; whence it can even happen that operative accidents exist in a subject in which grace is lacking, as is clear of faith and hope, because they are not in sanctifying grace as in their subject but in the natural powers. Nor therefore is the argument to be conceived as though, from the physical nature of things, the supernatural habits no less presuppose grace than the natural powers and habits presuppose nature. The force of the argument is rather moral, because it does not befit the divine wisdom to infuse supernatural operative accidents before it has given man a supernatural nature, if one may so speak. For man ought to be a friend of God before he acts as a friend of God”.

The uncreated gift is God himself, a being from himself. The thesis therefore affirms that God gives himself in the justification of the sinner, and remains in him and dwells in him. God, then, is present in the justified man in a new and special way. If God becomes present somewhere in such a way that he was not present there before, some change must have taken place; and since this cannot be in God, it must be found in the creature. In our case this change is the infusion of sanctifying grace. That, then, is the foundation of the relation of God's presence in the soul. This presence is predicated in a special way of the Holy Spirit himself. In the treatise on the Trinity it is shown, according to the more common opinion and against Petavius, that what is at issue here is an appropriation¹. Therefore the three divine persons give themselves as a gift in justification. This “becoming present” in the soul of the just man is, on the part of all three persons, a “coming”: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit “come” into the soul of the just man; on the part of the second and third persons it has also the character of a mission (invisible mission).

The indwelling of God in the just man is a certain union of God with the just man. The term of this union is not a substantial unity, and hence the union itself must be called accidental; but the terms which are thus accidentally united are substances. Therefore what is at issue is not a merely dynamic presence of God, the presence of his power, but the divine substance itself is present, and in this sense the very presence of God in the just man is substantial.

If the Fathers, especially in the controversy with the Nestorians, insist in a special way that the union of the divine and human nature in Christ is physical, not only according to relation, as in the just, in whom God dwells as in his own temple, they did not wish to deny that the union of God with the just is real, existing objectively in the ontological order, as is clear from their words². This union, therefore, is not merely moral in the sense that the just man renders his will conformable to the divine will, or that God loves him with a special love, but it is an ontological, real union, which in its own way could even be called physical.

The thesis treats of what takes place in the justification of the sinner; therefore not of that bestowal of the Holy Spirit which is the proper effect of certain sacraments of the living, nor directly of the second justification, that is, of the increase of justice.

The mere fact itself, that God is present in the just man in a way in which he is not present in the sinner, is contained so clearly in the sources of revelation that it must be said to be of faith; nor is there any controversy about this matter, at least if the just of the New Testament are considered. Petavius, however,³ wished to restrict this indwelling to the just of the New Testament alone, so that in the just of the Old Testament the Holy Spirit did not dwell substantially; whence in his account of the formal cause of adoption he had to deny that the just of the Old Testament were truly adopted sons of God. This opinion, however, is rejected by almost all theologians, and rightly so: “because adoption and justification are inseparably linked, and because, since the just of the Old Testament had sanctifying grace and were friends of God, nothing was lacking of what indwelling requires. Wherefore Leo XIII in the encyclical ‘Divinum illud’ says: ‘It is certain that in those very just men who lived before Christ, the Holy Spirit dwelt by grace’ (Acta S. Sedis XXIX, 1897; 651). In three respects, however, indwelling belongs to the New Testament more than to the Old: a) The Old Testament, precisely as it is understood as the Mosaic law, was a prefiguring of grace, not a bestowal of it. But all the grace that was granted in the Old Testament was given in view of the merits of Christ. Insofar, therefore, as the sanctifying grace even of the Old Testament was in some way an anticipated effect of the death of Christ, to that extent all sanctification belongs to the New Testament; and since sanctification is indwelling, this too is a property of the new law, not of the Sinaitic economy. b) In the Old Testament grace was not given with as great a largess as in the New Testament... c) Never before the day of Pentecost was the Holy Spirit sent with so great an array of external signs and of the greatest miracles...”⁴. J. H. Oswald advanced a singular opinion, affirming that the substantial indwelling of the Holy Spirit is had only through confirmation, and that through baptism there is only a dynamic indwelling⁵.

On the very difficult question of how the indwelling of God in the just man is to be explained and conceived, the opinions of theologians vary. Galtier notes very well that in treating this matter one must proceed from those things which the sources positively hand down, and take them as one's foundation. Theologians further dispute about the relation between created and uncreated grace, and about what in justification is to be attributed to created and what to uncreated grace. On this question, however, we must speak in the third section.

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE CHURCH

The documents of the Church are not so numerous in which this truth is stated directly and on its own account; for the most part it is presupposed.

The Creed of Epiphanius: “We believe also in the Holy Spirit, who spoke in the law, and preached through the prophets, and descended at the Jordan, spoke in the apostles, and dwells in the saints”⁶.

Conc. Trid., sess. 6, cap. 7: “signing and anointing with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance”⁷. Sess. 14, cap. 4 teaches that imperfect contrition is “a gift of God and an impulse of the Holy Spirit, not indeed as yet dwelling in us, but only moving us”⁸. Cap. 8, on the necessity and fruit of satisfaction: “Indeed the nature of divine justice also seems to demand that those be received into grace by him on one footing who sinned before baptism through ignorance; and on another, who, once freed from the slavery of sin and of the devil, and having received the gift of the Holy Spirit, did not fear knowingly to violate the temple of God and to grieve the Holy Spirit”⁹. St Pius V condemned the 13th proposition of Baius: “Good works done by the sons of adoption do not receive the character of merit from the fact that they are done through the spirit of adoption dwelling in the hearts of the sons of God, but...”. Proposition 15: “The character of merit does not consist in this, that he who acts well has grace and the indwelling Holy Spirit, but only in this, that he obeys the divine law”¹⁰.

Leo XIII in the encyclical “Divinum illud” of 9 May 1897 treats this matter at length. “The beginnings of this regeneration and renewal are given to man through baptism: in which sacrament, the unclean spirit being driven out of the soul, the Holy Spirit first enters in, and makes it like to himself: That which is born of the Spirit is spirit¹¹. And more abundantly through sacred confirmation, for the constancy and strength of the Christian life, the same Spirit gives himself as a gift; from whom, surely, came the victory of the martyrs and the triumph of virgins over the allurements of corruption. He gives himself, we say, as a gift, the Holy Spirit; The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us¹². For he not only brings us divine gifts, but is himself their author, and is himself also the supreme gift; who, proceeding from the mutual love of the Father and the Son, is rightly held and named the gift of the most high God. — That the nature and power of this gift may appear more clearly, we must recall what the sacred doctors have explained as handed down in the divine letters: that God is present to all things and is in them, by power, inasmuch as all things are subject to his power; by presence, inasmuch as all things are naked and open to his eyes; by essence, inasmuch as he is present to all things as the cause of being¹³. But God is in man not only as he is in things, but is further known and loved by him; since even under the guidance of nature we spontaneously love, desire and seek the good. Moreover, God by grace dwells in the just soul as in a temple, in a manner wholly intimate and singular; from which there follows also that bond of charity by which the soul cleaves most closely to God, more than a friend could to a friend most benevolent and beloved, and enjoys him fully and sweetly. — But this wonderful conjunction, which by its own name is called indwelling, differing only in condition or state from that by which God embraces the blessed in making them happy, although it is most truly brought about by the present majesty of the whole Trinity, we shall come to him and make our abode with him¹⁴, yet it is predicated of the Holy Spirit as something peculiar. For indeed traces of the divine power and wisdom appear even in the wicked man; but of charity, which is as it were the proper mark of the Spirit, no one is a partaker except the just man. And with this it coheres that the same Spirit is named Holy, also for the reason that he, the first and supreme Love, moves and leads souls to holiness, which is finally contained in the love of God. Wherefore when the Apostle calls the just the temple of God, he does not expressly call them the temple of the Father or of the Son, but of the Holy Spirit: Know you not that your members are the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have from God?¹⁵ — Upon the Holy Spirit dwelling in pious souls there follows in many ways an abundance of heavenly gifts”¹⁶.

SACRED SCRIPTURE

Io 14, 23: “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him”. — Rom 5, 5: “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us”. 8, 9 ff.: “But you are not in the flesh but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead because of sin, but the spirit liveth because of justification. And if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you”. — 1 Cor 3, 16 f.: “Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? But if any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are”. 6, 19: “Know you not that your members are the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body”. — 2 Cor 1, 21 f.: “Now he who confirmeth us with you in Christ, and he who hath anointed us, is God: who also hath sealed us and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts”. 6, 16: “And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God”. — Gal 4, 6: “And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father”. — Eph 1, 13 ff.: “In whom you also, when you had heard the word of truth (the Gospel of your salvation), in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance, unto the redemption of acquisition, unto the praise of his glory”. 4, 30 “And grieve not the holy Spirit of God: in whom you were sealed unto the day of redemption”. 5, 18: “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is luxury: but be ye filled with the holy Spirit”. — 1 Thess 4, 8: “who (God) also hath given his holy Spirit in us”.

THE FATHERS

Many things are already found in those which have been brought forward in the preceding theses¹⁷. THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS: “But it shall be built in the name of the Lord: take heed that the temple of the Lord be built gloriously. How? Learn. Having received the remission of sins and having hope in the name of the Lord, we have become new, created again from the beginning; wherefore in us, in our dwelling, God truly dwells”¹⁸. ST IRENAEUS: “For this (the Holy Spirit) he promised through the prophets to pour out in the last times upon servants and handmaids, that they might prophesy; whence he also descended upon the Son of God, made son of man, dwelling with him and accustoming himself to dwell in the human race, and to rest in men, and to dwell in the handiwork of God, working in them the will of the Father, and renewing them from the oldness into the newness of Christ”¹⁹. “Perfect therefore are those who have the Spirit of God persevering in them and have kept their souls and bodies without complaint; keeping the things of God, that is, that faith which is towards God, and guarding that justice which is towards the neighbour. Whence also he says that the handiwork is the temple of God: Know you not, he says, that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are; plainly calling the body the temple, in which the Spirit dwells”²⁰. NOVATIAN: “This is he (the Holy Spirit) who works from the waters the second birth, a certain seed of the divine race, and the consecrator of the heavenly birth, the pledge of the promised inheritance and as it were a kind of bond of eternal salvation; who makes us the temple of God and makes us his house; who intercedes with the divine ears for us with unutterable groanings, fulfilling the offices of advocacy and discharging the duties of defence; given as an inhabitant to our bodies and the worker of holiness”²¹. DIDYMUS OF ALEXANDRIA: “A creature cannot be participated substantially by the rational soul so as to dwell in it; for it is proper to God alone to be so participated. But the Holy Spirit exists as substantially participable as the Father and the Son, as has been said in the first discourse. For even as the Father dwells in those who are worthy, what is necessary, unless that through the unity of the divine nature and its fullness towards us, both the Son and the Holy Spirit come together and concur? Surely no one would ever wish to say that a multitude of gods in some way dwells in us, but that one God exists in the unity of the Godhead, three persons”²².

ST AUGUSTINE: “But that is far more wonderful, that whereas God is wholly everywhere, he does not yet dwell in all. For it cannot be said to all what the Apostle says, or what I have already said²³, or even that: Know you not that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?²⁴ Whence also, on the contrary, he says of certain men: But if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his²⁵. Who indeed would dare to think, unless one wholly ignorant of the inseparability of the Trinity, that the Father or the Son could dwell in anyone in whom the Holy Spirit does not dwell, or the Holy Spirit in anyone in whom the Father and the Son are not also? Whence it must be confessed that God is everywhere by the presence of his divinity, but not everywhere by the grace of indwelling. For on account of this indwelling, where the grace of his love is without doubt recognized, we do not say, Our Father who art everywhere, though this also is true, but, Our Father who art in heaven²⁶, that we may rather call to mind in prayer his temple, which we ourselves ought to be, and inasmuch as we are, to that extent we belong to his fellowship and to the family of his adoption... Since therefore he who is everywhere does not dwell in all; even in those in whom he dwells he does not dwell equally. For whence is that which Elisha asked, that the Spirit of God which was in Elijah might be in him doubly?²⁷ And whence is it that among all the saints some are holier than others, unless by possessing the indwelling God more abundantly?²⁸. And therefore it is a very wonderful thing how God is the indweller of some who do not yet know him, and is not the indweller of some who know him. For neither do they belong to the temple of God who, knowing God, did not glorify him as God, or give thanks; and to the temple of God belong little ones sanctified by the sacrament of Christ, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, who surely by reason of age cannot yet know God: whence him whom those could neither know nor have, these could have before they knew. But most blessed are those to whom to have God is the same as to know him: for that knowledge itself is most full, most true, most happy”²⁹. “We say therefore that in baptized little ones, although they do not know it, the Holy Spirit dwells. For they do not know him, though he is in them, just as they do not know their own mind either; whose reason in them, which they cannot yet use, is as it were a certain spark asleep, to be stirred up by the advance of age. Nor ought this seem wonderful in little ones, since the Apostle says even to some who are older: Know you not that you are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?³⁰ Of such he had said a little before: But the sensual man perceiveth not those things that are of the Spirit of God; whom he also calls little ones, not in the age of the flesh but of the mind³¹. They therefore did not perceive by knowledge the Holy Spirit who dwelt in them; and while the Holy Spirit dwelt in them, they were still sensual, not yet spiritual, because they could not yet perceive by knowledge their indwelling Spirit. But he is said to dwell also in such persons because he works in them secretly, that they may be his temple; and this he perfects in those who make progress and persevere in progressing”³². “The love therefore which is of God and is God is properly the Holy Spirit, through whom the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, through which the whole Trinity dwells in us. Wherefore most rightly the Holy Spirit, since he is God, is also called the Gift of God. And what is that gift properly to be understood as, but charity, which leads to God, and without which any other gift of God whatever does not lead to God?”³³

ST CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: “And why are we called and are temples of God, and gods? Ask the adversaries whether we are in fact partakers of a bare and substance-less grace. But the case is not so: by no means. For we are temples of a Spirit who exists and subsists; and we are called gods on account of him also, especially since we are partakers of his divine and ineffable nature. But if the Spirit who deifies us through himself is truly alien and substantially separated from the divine nature, we have fallen from our hope, shining, I know not how, with empty glory. For how are we at length gods and temples of God, as the Scriptures speak, on account of the Spirit who is in us? For what is not God, how could it give divinity to others? But we are temples and gods; nor indeed is assent to be given to those who are in error. His Spirit, therefore, is not of a substance different from God”.³⁴

THE THEOLOGIANS

The theologians, as was said above, agree on the fact, but they attempt to explain it in different ways.

Sacred Scripture speaks of a certain “remaining” of God in those who love him, and he makes his abode with them; the just are the temple of God, which is said specifically also of the body and its members. We are sealed with the Spirit of God, he is the pledge of our inheritance. Briefly, therefore, it seems that it can be said: it is an indwelling for our sanctification. Similar things are found in the holy Fathers: the Spirit dwelling in us works in us the will of the Father, renews us, intercedes for us, is advocate and defender, the worker of holiness. By participation in him we are joined to God, he makes us spiritual, quickens us, infuses grace, makes us like God, gods. Augustine distinguishes the presence of God by the presence of divinity, by which he is everywhere, and the presence by the grace of indwelling; this is not equal in all, but has different degrees according to the various degrees of sanctity. Some have the knowledge of God, in whom he does not dwell; others have not knowledge, in whom nevertheless he dwells (baptized infants), and this indwelling signifies: he works secretly in them, that they may be his temple, and this he perfects in those who make progress and persevere. All of which again seems able to be summed up thus: he dwells in us, sanctifying us and leading us to eternal life.

In explaining indwelling, most theologians agree that a special presence of God cannot be had except by reason of a special effect in the creature, and that effect is the very infusion of grace or charity. That the procession of the Holy Spirit into men is attended to only by reason of sanctifying grace, St Thomas³⁵ explains from the fact that this procession is attended to “inasmuch as it is the way of returning to the end; and it is only according to those gifts which most closely unite us to the last end, namely God, which are sanctifying grace and glory”. But because this procession includes within itself the giving of the Holy Spirit, “it does not suffice that there be a new relation of the creature to God, of whatever kind it is, but it must be referred to him as to something had; because what is given to anyone is had by him in some way. But a divine person cannot be had by us except either for perfect fruition, and thus it is had through the gift of glory; or according to imperfect fruition, and thus it is had through the gift of sanctifying grace; or rather as that through which we are united to the object of fruition, inasmuch as the divine persons themselves by a kind of sealing of themselves leave in our souls certain gifts by which we formally enjoy them, namely love and wisdom; for which reason the Holy Spirit is said to be the pledge of our inheritance”.

In the Summa contra gentiles³⁶: “It is necessary that wherever there is any effect of God, there God the agent be also. Whence since the charity by which we love God is in us through the Holy Spirit, it is necessary that the Holy Spirit himself also be in us, as long as charity is in us”. In 1 ad Cor. cap. 3, lect. 3: “But it must be considered that God is in all creatures, in which he is by essence, power and presence, filling all things with his goodness, according to that of Hier. 23: I fill heaven and earth. But spiritually God is said to dwell as in a familiar house in the saints, whose mind is capable of God through knowledge and love, even if they themselves do not actually know and love, provided they have through grace the habit of faith and charity, as is clear of baptized children. And knowledge without love does not suffice for the indwelling of God, according to that of 1 Io 4: He who abides in charity abides in God, and God in him. Hence it is that many know God, either by natural knowledge or by unformed faith, in whom nevertheless the Spirit of God does not dwell”. In 2 ad Cor. cap. 6 lect. 3: “I will dwell in them, namely in the saints, cultivating them by grace; although God is said to be in all things by presence, power and essence, he is not nevertheless said to dwell in them, but only in the saints by grace. The reason of which is that God is in all things by his action inasmuch as he joins himself to them as giving being and preserving them in being. But in the saints he is by the operation of the saints themselves, by which they attain to God and in some way comprehend him, which is to love and to know. For one who loves and knows is said to have in himself the things known and loved”.

Summa Theol. 1 q. 43 a. 3 asks: “Whether the invisible mission of a divine person is only according to the gift of sanctifying grace”, and answers: “It befits a divine person to be sent inasmuch as it exists in someone in a new way; but to be given, inasmuch as it is had by someone; and neither of these is except according to sanctifying grace. For there is one common way in which God is in all things by essence, power and presence, as the cause in the effects partaking of his goodness. But over and above this common way there is one special way, which befits the rational creature, in which God is said to be as the known in the knower and the loved in the lover. And because by knowing and loving the rational creature by its own operation attains to God himself, according to this special way God is said not only to be in the rational creature, but also to dwell in it as in his temple. Thus therefore no other effect can be the reason that a divine person is in the rational creature in a new way, except sanctifying grace. Whence a divine person is sent and proceeds temporally only according to sanctifying grace. Similarly we are said to have only that which we can freely use or enjoy. But to have the power of enjoying a divine person is only according to sanctifying grace. But yet in the very gift of sanctifying grace the Holy Spirit is had, and dwells in man. Whence the Holy Spirit himself is given and sent”.

From these words of St Thomas some have attempted to explain the indwelling of God precisely from the fact that God is in the just man as the known in the knower and the loved in the lover³⁷.

It must be confessed that such an explanation is scarcely founded on what Scripture and the Fathers say about indwelling. For according to them, indwelling is had by the very fact that man is regenerated, that the divine nature is communicated to him, that he is sanctified, consecrated: that is, by the very infusion of sanctifying grace. Nor does it appear how the known as such in the knower, the loved as such in the lover, is substantially present³⁸. Moreover, God dwells also in those who do not know him (baptized infants), nor can it be elicited by habitual knowledge and love through the infused habits of faith and charity; for by these habits habitual knowledge and love are not had, as in an acquired habit; but the infused habits confer the very power. But by the fact that the faculty of knowing is communicated to someone, the object of this knowledge cannot yet be called present to him.

And so Leo XIII, in the words cited above, distinguishes the presence of God in man through knowledge and love from that which is through grace and which is properly called indwelling.

Suárez explains the matter thus: “It seems to me therefore that those who say that the gifts of sanctifying grace are such as by their own force, or by a kind of connatural right, to demand the intimate, real and personal presence of God in the soul sanctified by such gifts, judge with sufficient probability and piety. Which is best declared by this conditional statement. For if we imagine, per impossibile, that the Holy Spirit were not otherwise really present within the soul, by the very fact that the soul were endowed with such gifts the Holy Spirit himself would come to it by a personal presence and would be and remain in it, as long as grace lasted in it. And in this way, although he now otherwise has that presence by reason of his immensity and power, he is rightly said now to have it by a special title by reason of grace and charity, and therefore is rightly said to come or to be sent to the soul by means of these gifts”. And he explains this further: “For by grace and charity a certain most perfect friendship between God and man is established. But friendship of itself seeks union between friends, not only by conformity of affections, but also by inseparable presence and union as far as can be. Whence a most perfect and most spiritual and divine friendship demands by its own right and debt the intimate presence of God in the man whom it thus makes its friend, through a real existence within him by force of such friendship, so that, even if he were not there on another title, this would suffice. But because this union is so much of friendship that it is nevertheless not between those altogether equal, but with due proportion, therefore by its force God remains in man as his protector and ruler, whose care God has, not only on the title of his general providence, but on the peculiar title of friendship. Finally, because in this friendship account must always be had of the divine majesty, therefore by its force the Holy Spirit so remains in man as in a friend to whom he is intimately united, that he remains there at the same time as a friend to be honoured with the highest reverence and veneration, and therefore he remains there present also as in a living temple, which he himself adorns and prepares for himself through created gifts, that he may be adored in it and by it. And certainly this manner of presence and indwelling the sacred letters indicate in the passages cited”³⁹. Thus there is established a certain presence of God, not only as object of knowledge and love (which, as is clear, is not denied), but a real, substantial presence antecedently to and independently of man's knowledge and love, from the very infusion of sanctifying grace. God gives himself to man as a friend by the fact that, infusing sanctifying grace, he makes man his friend. This explanation, which is accepted by quite a few theologians⁴⁰, seems in some way to be contained in the words of Leo XIII related above, and of it can be said what he himself affirms: “it differs only in condition or state from that by which God embraces the blessed in making them happy”.

Vazquez, however, judges this opinion insufficient to explain the special presence of God in the just man. For “these gifts, beyond the common character of an effect of the divine power, have this about them, that they unite us to God according to affection and as a rule to which we are said to be just, or as a friend to whom we are said to be beloved and therefore holy and immaculate: but this effect, which is wholly in affection, or through respect to it, can be between those absent in substance, as is manifest”⁴¹. Someone could reply and say that from the fact that friendship can exist even between the absent it does not follow that God, in establishing this friendship, does not give himself substantially; but by this very fact it already seems to be conceded that the infusion of grace, inasmuch as friendship with God is established by it, cannot give the ultimate explanation of the special indwelling. Of the presence of God as known in the knower Vazquez says: “Concerning this manner of existing there is almost no controversy among the doctors; but it is of such a nature that it would not suffice for God to constitute things by essence, if otherwise he were not in them by his immensity: for this manner unites man with God by knowledge alone, by affection, operation or habit”. He states his own opinion thus: “Although it cannot be denied that the person of the Holy Spirit is given to us by reason of the charisms and sent to us, and that the whole Trinity comes to us... this nevertheless is not said because on account of the mere largess of the gifts he would be in us according to substance, even if otherwise he did not exist there by his immensity, but because, since he is otherwise in us, he deigns to appear in us by a new effect of grace; and since these gifts are appropriated to the Holy Spirit, he too is said to be given and sent to us, and with him the whole Trinity to come”. Yet if one stops at this alone, the explanation given does not yet seem to be of that special presence which is found in indwelling.

Hence Galtier⁴² attempted to show that in the sanctification of man there is not a divine operation such as there is in the other effects of God, but an operation specially and plainly of its own kind, by reason of which a corresponding presence of God, altogether of its own kind, would also have to be asserted. In every effect, indeed, some likeness with its cause is found, and so even in created things there is a certain likeness to God, though a very imperfect one. But now the production of grace tends precisely to a likeness to God, not any likeness whatever, but a special one; for it is a communication of the divine nature, it is a generation which by its nature is unto the likeness of the begetter. This assimilation to God transcends every “assimilation” that is had in the creation of nature and in all natural effects, as much as the supernatural transcends the natural. Consequently the operation which tends to this special assimilation must likewise be called altogether special. And by reason of this plainly singular operation the corresponding presence of God in the soul must also be asserted, and this is indwelling itself. This is the explanation which on the one hand truly corresponds to what the Fathers say about indwelling, and which on the other hand shows the real and special presence of God in all and only the just, of which it can rightly be said: even if God were not present by reason of immensity or on another title, he would yet be present by reason of this operation. This explanation rests on a principle generally admitted, that God “comes” into some creature and is present in it by reason of the divine operation, by which a change is posited in the creature, which is the foundation of the relation of God's presence. Thus this explanation seems to be preferred among those which have been proposed up to now in this difficult and obscure matter⁴³.

Note: At the end of this section something would still have to be said about the supernaturality of the gifts which are conferred in justification; but since these have already been set out at length both in the treatise On the one God and in the treatise On God elevating, they seem to be omitted in this place. There it is shown from the nature of the gifts (participation of the divine nature, adoptive sonship, inheritance of eternal life) that those gifts are absolutely supernatural, and that the end itself to which man is destined in this order, which is the very inheritance of the adopted son of God, the intuitive vision of God, is absolutely supernatural.